@_hm, it's interesting you ask if GoPro is wearable. Of course it is, at least in my book. You wear it, your device comes with wifi and it has software to get connected to your smartphone. On the other hand, I bet you would agree that Google Glass is 'wearable.' So, what's the difference? With Google Glass, you can push and pull information with the cloud. GoPro is designed to push data to the cloud. But my point is, if you are asking people to 'wear' any device, its wearability should come with distinct purpose. Fitbit does. Glucose meter does. GoPro does.

Absolutely. Junko, I enjoy your article and agree with your view of GoPro.

GoPro thrives so quickly. Not only have I seen athletics like cyclists, skiiers, etc wearing it but also motorcyclist who is commuting having a GoPro on the helmet. It provides on the road video and, in case of accident, an evidence of the incidence. So far, GoPro is definitely a wearable in athletic world. Although size matters, it doesn't need to be tiny. Who knows? As the technology improve, the next generation sport camera may go a quarter of the size of today's GoPro, consumer may start using it elsewhere.

To me, wearable shall not be limited to general public and is not just defined by the size.

I think the strategy behind those watches is this: Currently it's only a niche product, but it's probably profitable(for the hw companies , and it's peanuts for google) - so why not sell and it and be ready incase some innovation(in sensors, in google now, in fashion) will make it a hit . The other option is not being ready and letting someone else grab a critical platform - quite a big risk.

Thanks Junko for putting my feelings about wearables into words. I concur with you that comanies should not replicate the smartphone functionality into wearable devices but should innovate and create value for money.

As per my opinion, the difference between a wearable device and a smart phone is same as the difference between an embeeded system and a laptop or tablet computer.

While in a Laptop or tablet, the computing is at the forefront , whereas in an embedded system the user function it is performing is at the forefront.

Similarly in a wearable device the functionality should be at the forefront and the phone capability or any kind communications capability should be a background function and should be automatically happening wihout user intervention.

@Junko,Thanks for the post. GoPro is popular because its small and lightweight, which is very convenient when filming yourself with sports or just action shots. Other reasons why its very popular is because its waterproof and there are millions of secure mounts that let it fit anywhere.

I concur with you that comanies should not replicate the smartphone functionality into wearable devices but should innovate and create value for money.

@Wilber_xbox, I agree with your opinion. But I am sure many people dont like carrying around smartphone in their pocket. They would love to wear those devices instead of carrying around them in their pocket.

Currently it's only a niche product, but it's probably profitable(for the hw companies , and it's peanuts for google) - so why not sell and it and be ready incase some innovation(in sensors, in google now, in fashion) will make it a hit .

@alex_m1, I agree with you. Wearable devices have become fashion statements for many youngsters. Many of them dont want to carry smartphones in their pockets instead they would like to wear it in the form of watches or glasses.